One of the issues that is bedevilling my own participation in this blog - and I'm sure I'm not exceptional in this - is that the School's culture does not include the idea of a useful opposition.
If we are to have evolution not revolution, there needs to be proper and equal space given to the voices of opposition. At the moment, any expression of opposition is the same as calling for revolution, which I for one would be horrified at.
All we have now are questions. The student can ask a question, and then "press the question", supposedly all the way to the Shankaracharya. In practice, this means little if the recipient of the question is not interested. I've watched people in my own group "press a question" for several years, but the decision as to whether to take it further is not based on the satisfaction of the student - as perhaps it should be - but with the satisfaction of the tutor. If the tutor believes that the student's question is "not useful", or "coming from ahankara", then even to allow it airtime is wrong. Eventually the student gives up.
The announcement recently about dress code was greeted by one member of my group with te words, "What took it so long?" The tutor's answer was that some other younger groups had "pressed the question" - in other words, it was our fault for not doing so. Doh! When the School eventually reforms itself, you can tell that the very people who dug their heels in for years will be blaming the students for their tamasic failure to press hard enough.
So, given that this mechanism of asking questions doesn't work very well, I would propose that we adopt a system similar to our Parliamentary democracy (that should keep the traditionalist wing happy), whereby the Head of State (the Queen) is symbolically served by her government and by her loyal opposition. I'm not sure who the Queen is in this set-up - maybe the Shankaracharya, or perhaps the Teaching itself. Or maybe it's the School leader. It would be nice to think of the leader as being an impartial figure, not defending or opposing anything.
There is a certain amount of pain associated with posting on this blog, probably because one occupies a position that many will regard as treasonous, and yet almost every day there seems to be something that needs to be said. I wish there was another way to do it, but for now there isn't.
This blog is, so far as I can see, the least bad way to practically explore the issues that face the School with a wide group of people; but it would be better if we had democracy. If we did, we could take the conversation off-line.
The problem with democracy is of course that "the people" are ignorant and led by their whims; at what point does the School decide that it's done its job of education and forming character, and give its members the respect and responsibility of having a voice?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
HM Loyal Opposition
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
If Kapila's posting on Psychology has any merit - and it does - then I would accept what you say, rather than agree, on the further grounds (as quoted by him) that 'This attitude encourages the other person to be less defensive and to explore aspects of self and the situation that they might otherwise keep hidden.'
It's worth saying - for those who may not know - that the School leader is aware of this blog and has not sent an Exocet across its bows. It's fair to assume, therefore, that he sees it as having some merit. What his perception of it is can only be a matter of speculation - and I'm not going to speculate.
The School is currently run as an oligarchy - or is it an aristocracy - and in Plato's system either of these two states is better than a democracy which caters only to the desires of the commoners. So I guess a democracy as understand by Plato is out of order.
Supposing for the moment that the School is oligarchic in nature, then this would explain how all attempts to 'change' anything of any seriousness are met with either rebuffs or disdain. 'Pressing the question' could then be seen as a useful means of putting off and delaying.
How else to view the traumas occasioned by the treatment of children in the early days of St Vedast and St James? Setting aside for the moment any sufferings endured by individual children, that the School set up a system of education that, in itself, caused suffering must raise a question in even the most loyal about the governing principles of the School and how they are enacted.
Can an oligarchy reform itself? Clean itself? Then shake the doormat free of tamas? I don't know if there have been any examples of this in history. The oligarchs see no reason for any change. All would be well if only the commoners knew their place.
So I don't frankly hold out much hope.
Unless, of course, there was a redefinition of terms which allowed us to think of ourselves as advaita.
Exocets are no longer the fashion - Health and Safety I think.
Plato's views on politics are, frankly, cream-crackers. Infanticide, anyone? Breeding people by means of a rigged lottery? I'm not sure why anyone would want to base their thinking on the Republic. Not his best work.
Even Plato changed his mind, by the time of The Laws, and went for a parliamentary democracy. He had tried his luck with a philosopher king by that time.
Not sure why we can't change our minds as well.
Suppose one was to say: 'Let's leave all the governing systems that we know or have heard about to one side. Ok, done that? Now - consider - what is the best means of transmitting the words of the wise so that they may be heard and acted upon?
Seems ridiculously simple put like that.
Gitalover,
I would agree with you on all of that. I suppose the only cavil I would have with accepting HH's answer is that it has been misused as a way of avoiding engagement with the actual community. It becomes a catch-all excuse for doing nothing.
99% white middle class membership? We must do more spiritual work.
Ageing School population? We must do more spiritual work.
People feel resentment about time at St James? We must do more spiritual work.
At some point I think we have to ask ourselves whether the work we are doing is actually the work that needs doing - is actually spiritual. No, we can't fix God's problem, nor our neighbour's ... but equally we can't just wash our hands. We are neither responsible, nor freed of responsibility.
Being creative is about accepting all of the contradictions and living with the discomfort until the solution presents itself. Then the stress goes, not before.
You may well be right, Gitalover, about the distortion or otherwise of a channel. But what is concerning at the moment is the silting up of the channel.
Unless we were to hear the teaching only by sitting under a banyan tree - impractical in the British climate - a School needs buildings, money to run them and, in the UK, the imprimatur of the Charity Commissioners.
But as any organisation ages the maintenance of these objects seems to take up increasing amounts of time and money, possibly beyond what is needed to furnish a healthy discipline. School fees go up - they're now pretty hefty - and the cycle continues.
I don't think anyone would say that the School hasn't done a good job at provision - it has.
There is a large pool of people with capacities and skills - so surely it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to address the kind of issues which V mentions?
Your post about the Fellowship meeting and the declared aims of the School is pertinent. On the face of it, the 'aims' seem very out-of-date - by a matter of decades. They may have 'stood the test of time' but since when has Time been the arbiter?
Or is it old Father Time that's standing in the way?
The School certainly has a reverence for time that is, to say the least, unusual.
Aha! A practical problem. Gitalover - if you're genuinely seeking further teaching in, let us say, the Vedic scriptures and Sanscrit, and you're sure that you can't find this in the School (have you looked everywhere?)then you have a couple of alternatives, it seems to me.
Take a sabbatical, go to Varanasi/Poona and pack in a year's study. Or take an extra-mural course here in the UK - more suitable for people with householder duties. There are people in the School who've done both these alternatives and can advise.
Or take Ramana Maharshi's view on book learning and the Self.
You've been on about this for some time and my guess is that you won't be content until you've pursued the scholarship path.
Best of luck from Agony Aunt Laura
Related to the question of HM Loyal opposition, the question arises here as to what is, and what is not, respect?
Sometimes 'respect for the teaching' ends up looking more like passive agreement, but not understanding. And passive agreement is not respect. It is something else. Some suggestions:
- the student is asleep
- the student is afraid of being shown up or ostracised for non-conformity
- the student is nodding merely in recognition that the've heard something before, not because they understand it
- the student is thinking, "If I feign agreement then perhaps he will stop talking sooner than otherwise".
None of the above could be described as respect for the tutor or the teaching. Yet 'respect for the teaching' seems to have, more than occassionally, taken this guise? Challenging the authority may just be out of a desire to be argumentative or prove something but it could also be because the student wants to probe more deeply into what has been said. Arjuna asked quite a few difficult questions. He even accuses Krishna of contradicting Himself, "Lord, didn't you just say reason was better than action...?" This shows, not that he is being disrespectful, but that he is following the argument, is remembering what has been said before and is wanting to resolve the apparent contradictions in his mind. Having taken this approach myself the response has, more than once, been:
- defence of one statement in isolation, followed by
- defence of an apparently contradictory statement in isolation
with the unresolved question (which will no doubt be reconciled by deeper understanding) of how the statements are in reality complementary not contradictory.
Absence of respect is when we've stopped asking questions because there is no faith in the ability of the other to answer them. If the 'other' were to give up the defence and allow the enquiry to take place this just might allow for growth in understanding for all concerned.
PS - not being able to answer the question is no bad thing. It boils down to, "there is no formulation that can do justice to this", or simply, "I don't know". Having seen tutors have the humility to admit this, or more rarely actually accept a pertinent challenge made against the material, it does not lead to doubt, it leads to greater respect.
Yes, if an answer can satisfy - that's best in most situations, I find. But if there's not a proper answer to hand then what is needed is space for enquiry. If need be to let the question lie.
What seems to be dishonest - and fearful - is to shy away from enquiry because the line of questioning is unwelcome.
We've probably all known times like that. And a more dispiriting experience is hard to imagine.
I think what Kapila says about the tactic of defence of an isolated statement, and then of a contradictory one, is really perceptive. The only other time I've heard something like this was from an ex-St Vedast pupil.
I don't think I have quite understood this yet. (Do I want to?)
There seems to be with some tutors an ethic of "a confused student is better than an over-confident one".
In response to Gitalover's comment and quotation of Ramana Maharshi, I've made a comment on "Catching the Chameleon".
Defence of two apparently contradictory statements? Could this be a paradox?
A paradox, as I see it, is a means of uniting (or perhaps twinning is a better word) two otherwise irreconcilable concepts.
It's a bridge across troubled waters.
Find the parameters of the paradox and the irreconcilables become linked.
Laura,
What Kapila is talking about, I think, is a deliberate tactic whereby the student is thrown into confusion. The aim is not to defeat the mind or the ahankara, but to deflect a question and undermine confidence.
That is not "a bridge over troubled waters", is it?
It is, indeed, a Garfunkel 'over' rather than a confused 'across'. Thanks.
I love Kapila's post (number 9). It explains very clearly why when I'm asked what I learned at school I respond 'to lie'. You learnt the formula for the answer and you trotted it out when needed. Because if you didn't you would be criticised. If you questioned you didn't get answered, just criticised. So you fought an inward battle to overcome your hatred of lying and said what the teacher wanted to hear regardless of whether you believed or understood what you were saying. I guess those who found the capacity to swallow the Teaching regardless of the culture of 'isms (long skirts and hat blocking v. sailing and computers etc) had an easier time.
Actually, I don't claim "deliberate tactic" at all. Just the inevitable that occurs when defence is given higher status than understanding.
Very best site. Keep working. Will return in the near future.
»
Interesting site. Useful information. Bookmarked.
»
I can assure you that there is a 'Loyal Opposition' -- but it has learned to complain vigorously in private...
The hierarchy can't easily cope with public complaints -- it concertinas like a thwarted caterpillar -- and even private complaints aren't easy, since you know that there will be reactions all down the line; but go to the top with them all the same.
HH said right at the off, that we were not a School but a 'preparatory School' --it's an imperfect organisation run by imperfect but well-intentioned people..and it's developing...(right?)
I've seen too many people leave because they choose to see the school as a fixed entity -- 'There's no love in the School'.. etc. It's never an entity, it's always developing or trying to. So don't expect to be spoonfed love, or whatever -- go out and give it.
Believe that you yourself -- as Laura suggests -- are a responsible Advaitika or whatever the personal noun would be, and are free to speak your mind. Privately; otherwise it gets to be a diffuse shared grumble. Every organisation needs a loyal, positive, responsible opposition in order to develop. It could even be good for you, you stroppy so-and-so !
OK, that's the rant for today.. if it doesn't apply to you, apologies..
The point about a Loyal Opposition is that it is enshrined in our system of government.
You seem to be saying that the School is not strong enough to cope with public questioning - while at the same time expecting individuals to bear the burden. Why should individuals be stronger in themselves than the organization as a whole? Isn't it supposed to be the opposite way around?
I'm all for individual responsibility, and have personally rarely held back from expressing what I believe needs to be said, but I can also see that many people need to be encouraged to speak. That is an objective of this blog - to encourage people that they can speak and should speak, and that what they have to say (or what is buried beneath what they are saying) is important.
Post a Comment